[Cite as State v. Gearhart, 2018-Ohio-4180.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO 

WARREN COUNTY 

STATE OF OHIO, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 - vs - 

DOUGLAS C. GEARHART, 

 Defendant-Appellant. 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

CASE NO. CA2017-12-168 

O P I N I O N 

10/15/2018 

CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM WARREN COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS 

Case No. 17CR32812 

David P. Fornshell, Warren County Prosecuting Attorney, Kathryn M. Horvath, 520 Justice 

Drive, Lebanon, OH 45036, for plaintiff-appellee 

J. David Turner, 101 Southmoor Circle, Kettering, OH 45429, for defendant-appellant 

 S. POWELL, P.J.

{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, Douglas C. Gearhart, appeals from his conviction in the 

Warren County Court of Common Pleas after the trial court found him guilty of domestic 

violence and felonious assault following a bench trial. For the reasons outlined below, we 

affirm. 

{¶ 2} The Warren County Grand Jury returned a multi-count indictment charging 

Gearhart with one count of felonious assault and two counts of domestic violence. 
Warren CA2017-12-168 

 - 2 - 

According to the bill of particulars, the charges arose after it was alleged Gearhart – who 

was then a Montgomery County Sheriff's Deputy – caused serious physical harm to his then 

wife, K.G., by striking her, pushing her into the kitchen island, and throwing her into the 

garage.1 The bill of particulars also alleged Gearhart caused physical harm to his then stepdaughter, M.L., by grabbing her by her arm, head, and neck and shoving her head into the 

basement door. 

{¶ 3} Gearhart pled not guilty to all charges and the matter proceeded to a bench 

trial. At trial, a video recording of the incident taken from the Gearhart's in-home security 

camera was played for the trial court. The video recording displays Gearhart striking K.G., 

pushing K.G. into the kitchen island, and throwing K.G. into the garage as alleged in the bill 

of particulars. The video recording also depicts Gearhart grabbing his then step-daughter, 

M.L., by her arm, head, and neck and shoving her head into the basement door. During 

this time, Gearhart can be heard cursing at K.G. and M.L., telling them not to touch him and 

ordering them to get out of "[his] house." 

{¶ 4} In addition to this video evidence, M.L., who was then just 13-years-old, 

testified an intoxicated Gearhart grabbed her head and pushed her against the basement 

door after an argument erupted when Gearhart nearly hit her with a stack of paper plates 

that he threw onto the nearby kitchen counter. Following M.L.'s testimony, K.G. testified 

regarding her own altercation with Gearhart. Specifically, K.G. testified that after Gearhart 

pushed M.L.'s head against the basement door, Gearhart moved away from M.L. and turned 

his attention towards her. K.G. testified Gearhart then grabbed her by the hair and dragged 

her towards the kitchen island. Once there, K.G. testified Gearhart "slammed" her head 

into the kitchen island and kitchen cabinets. 

 

1. The record indicates Gearhart and K.G. were in the process of getting divorced at the time of the bench 

trial in this case. 
Warren CA2017-12-168 

 - 3 - 

{¶ 5} After being slammed by Gearhart into the kitchen island and kitchen cabinets, 

K.G. testified she could not remember what happened other than waking up on the garage 

floor with significant pain to her head and mouth. It is undisputed that three of K.G.'s teeth 

were later discovered in the garage close to where an unconscious K.G. was found lying 

on her stomach in a pool of blood. 

{¶ 6} The trial court also heard testimony from Dr. Megan Dines, an emergency 

room physician who treated K.G. for her injuries. As part of her testimony, Dr. Dines testified 

K.G. suffered from a subdural hematoma, a condition that is more generally referred to as 

a bleeding in the brain. When asked about the potential danger of suffering from a subdural 

hematoma, Dr. Dines' testified that such an injury could be fatal. Gearhart did not object to 

this testimony. 

{¶ 7} Dr. Dines also testified that K.G. suffered other significant injuries; namely, 

that K.G.'s three front teeth were knocked out, and that K.G. suffered a fractured cheek 

bone, bruising and abrasions to her face, as well as a sprained left shoulder and wrist. 

Photographs of K.G.'s injuries were submitted to the trial court. These photographs depict 

K.G. with dark bruising and abrasions on her chin, mouth, cheeks, nose, and eyes. 

Gearhart did not present any evidence in his defense. 

{¶ 8} After taking the matter under advisement, the trial court found Gearhart guilty 

of the three above-named offenses.2 The matter then proceeded to sentencing, where, 

after merging one of the domestic violence counts with the single count of felonious assault, 

the trial court sentenced Gearhart to serve four years in prison. The trial court also ordered 

Gearhart to pay approximately $5,000 in restitution to K.G. for uncovered medical expenses 

and notified Gearhart that he would be subject to a mandatory three-year postrelease 

 

2. Gearhart was also charged with driving while under the influence of alcohol. Gearhart was acquitted of 

this charge. 
Warren CA2017-12-168 

 - 4 - 

control term. 

{¶ 9} In reaching this sentencing decision, the trial court noted that Gearhart had 

given three different explanations as to how K.G. was injured when talking to police 

following his arrest, but that "none of them are true." The trial court also noted that it had 

viewed the video recording of the incident taken from the Gearhart's in-home security 

camera more than 20 times and found it "very clear" that Gearhart had assaulted both K.G. 

and M.L. as alleged. Gearhart now appeals from his conviction, raising two assignments 

of error for review. 

{¶ 10} Assignment of Error No. 1: 

{¶ 11} THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR IN OVERRULING 

OBJECTIONS TO DR. DINES' IMPROPER OPINION TESTIMONY DURING DIRECT 

EXAMINATION. 

{¶ 12} In his first assignment of error, Gearhart argues the trial court erred by 

overruling his objection to certain so-called "opinion testimony" offered by Dr. Dines 

regarding the possible cause of K.G.'s injuries; specifically, whether K.G. could have 

suffered a subdural hematoma by being slammed into a kitchen island and/or kitchen 

cabinets as K.G. testified. We disagree with Gearhart's claim. 

{¶ 13} This court reviews a trial court's decision to admit or exclude evidence under 

an abuse of discretion standard. State v. Gerde, 12th Dist. Clermont No. CA2016-11-077, 

2017-Ohio-7464, ¶ 8. An abuse of discretion connotes more than an error of law or 

judgment; it implies the trial court's decision was unreasonable, arbitrary, or 

unconscionable. State v. Grindstaff, 12th Dist. Clermont No. CA2013-09-074, 2014-Ohio2581, ¶ 21. A decision is unreasonable when it is "unsupported by a sound reasoning 

process." State v. Abdullah, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 07AP-427, 2007-Ohio-7010, ¶ 16, citing 

AAAA Ents., Inc. v. River Place Community Urban Redevelopment Corp., 50 Ohio St.3d 
Warren CA2017-12-168 

 - 5 - 

157, 161 (1990). This court "should not disturb evidentiary decisions in the absence of an 

abuse of discretion that has created material prejudice." State v. Boles, 12th Dist. Brown 

No. CA2012-06-012, 2013-Ohio-5202, ¶ 14, citing State v. Smith, 12th Dist. Fayette No. 

CA2007-10-035, 2008-Ohio-5931, ¶ 33. 

{¶ 14} Gearhart argues the trial court erred by permitting Dr. Dines, whom he claims 

was offered as an expert witness, to express her opinion regarding a "possible" causal 

relationship between the subdural hematoma K.G. suffered and his actions in slamming 

K.G. into a kitchen island or kitchen cabinets as opposed to a "probable" causal relationship 

between the same. However, contrary to Gearhart's claim otherwise, the Ohio Supreme 

Court has found "expert witnesses in criminal cases can testify in terms of possibility rather 

than in terms of a reasonable scientific certainty or probability." State v. Lang, 129 Ohio 

St.3d 512, 2011-Ohio-4215, ¶ 77, citing State v. D'Ambrosio, 67 Ohio St.3d 185, 191 (1993). 

That is because, as noted by the Ohio Supreme Court, '"[q]uestions about the certainty of 

the scientific results are matters of weight'" for the trier of fact to determine. State v. Lang, 

129 Ohio St.3d 512, 2011-Ohio-4215, ¶ 77, quoting State v. Allen, 5th Dist. Delaware No. 

2009-CA-13, 2010-Ohio-4644, ¶ 157. Gearhart's claim otherwise lacks merit. 

{¶ 15} In responding to Gearhart's argument, the state notes that Dr. Dines was not 

offered as an expert witness at trial, but instead as a fact witness who testified about the 

treatment she provided K.G. for her injuries once K.G. arrived at the emergency room. 

Although Dr. Dines most certainly could have been classified as an expert witness in this 

case, a review of the record supports the state's claim that Dr. Dines was never classified 

as such. Nevertheless, although Dr. Dines was offered merely as a fact witness, we find 

no error in the trial court's decision to permit Dr. Dines to testify in terms of "possibility" 

rather than in terms of "probability" regarding what may have caused K.G. to suffer a 

subdural hematoma. 
Warren CA2017-12-168 

 - 6 - 

{¶ 16} Pursuant to Evid.R. 701, a lay witness may testify in the form of opinions or 

inferences as long as the opinions or inferences are "(1) rationally based on the perception 

of the witness and (2) helpful to a clear understanding of the witness' testimony or the 

determination of a fact in issue." If the lay witness' opinion is not rationally based on his or 

her perception, then the opinion is speculation, and as such, cannot be helpful to a 

determination of a fact in issue. State v. Feerer, 12th Dist. Warren No. CA2008-05-064, 

2008-Ohio-6766, ¶ 23. Therefore, because Dr. Dines' testimony regarding the possible 

cause of K.G.'s subdural hematoma was based on her perception of K.G.'s injuries in 

relation to her extensive experience as an emergency room physician treating the same or 

substantially similar injuries to assault victims, the trial court did not err by overruling 

Gearhart's objection to Dr. Dines' testimony. 

{¶ 17} Regardless, even if we were to find the trial court erred by overruling 

Gearhart's objection to Dr. Dines' testimony, due to the overwhelming evidence of 

Gearhart's guilt, the trial court's decision to admit Dr. Dines' testimony would constitute 

harmless error. "A reviewing court properly finds the erroneous admission of evidence 

harmless error where there is overwhelming evidence of guilt or some other indicia the error 

did not contribute to the conviction." State v. Rowley, 12th Dist. Clinton No. CA2016-10-

019, 2017-Ohio-5850, ¶ 24, citing State v. Pottorf, 12th Dist. Warren No. CA2014-03-046, 

2014-Ohio-5399, ¶ 20. That is certainly the case here. Therefore, because we find no merit 

to any of Gearhart's arguments raised herein, Gearhart's first assignment of error is 

overruled. 

{¶ 18} Assignment of Error No. 2: 

{¶ 19} APPELLANT'S TRIAL ATTORNEY RENDERED INEFFECTIVE 

ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL. 

{¶ 20} In his second assignment of error, Gearhart argues he received ineffective 
Warren CA2017-12-168 

 - 7 - 

assistance of counsel. We again disagree with Gearhart's claim. 

{¶ 21} Counsel is strongly presumed to have rendered adequate assistance and 

made all significant decisions in the exercise of reasonable professional judgment. State 

v. Hendrix, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2012-05-109, 2012-Ohio-5610, ¶ 14. As a result, to 

prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, Gearhart must demonstrate (1) his 

trial counsel's performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, and (2) he 

was prejudiced as a result. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-688, 104 S.Ct. 

2052 (1984); State v. Burns, 12th Dist. Clinton No. CA2013-10-019, 2014-Ohio-4625, ¶ 7. 

The failure to make an adequate showing on either prong is fatal to an ineffective assistance 

of counsel claim. State v. Zielinski, 12th Dist. Warren No. CA2010-12-121, 2011-Ohio6535, ¶ 50. 

{¶ 22} As it relates to the first prong regarding his trial counsel's performance, 

Gearhart must show his trial counsel made errors so serious that he was not functioning as 

the "counsel" guaranteed a defendant by the Sixth Amendment to the United States 

Constitution. State v. Miller, 12th Dist. Clermont No. CA2011-04-028, 2012-Ohio-995, ¶ 27. 

On the other hand, as it relates to the second prong requiring a showing of prejudice, 

Gearhart must show that, but for his trial counsel's errors, there is a reasonable probability 

that the result of trial would have been different. State v. Kinsworthy, 12th Dist. Warren No. 

CA2013-06-053, 2014-Ohio-1584, ¶ 42. A "reasonable probability" is a probability that is 

sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome. State v. Graves, 12th Dist. Clermont 

No. CA2015-03-022, 2015-Ohio-3936, ¶ 31, citing Strickland at 694. 

{¶ 23} Gearhart raises several arguments in support of his ineffective assistance of 

counsel claim; namely, that his trial counsel was ineffective for (1) not renewing his objection 

to Dr. Dines' testimony discussed above; (2) not objecting to testimony from a paramedic 

when asked by the state if she had asked K.G. if she had any other injuries; (3) not objecting 
Warren CA2017-12-168 

 - 8 - 

to testimony from that same paramedic as to her opinion regarding the cause of K.G.'s 

injuries; (4) not objecting to testimony from a physician's assistant regarding his opinion as 

to whether a subdural hematoma, one of the many injuries K.G. was diagnosed with, could 

be fatal; and (5) not presenting any defense on his behalf. Yet, after a simple review of the 

record, it is clear that Gearhart's claims are nothing more than a challenge to his trial 

counsel's trial strategy in defending against the serious nature of the charges brought 

against him.3

{¶ 24} "The decision regarding which defense to pursue at trial is a matter of trial 

strategy, and trial strategy decisions are not the basis of a finding of ineffective assistance 

of counsel." Kinsworthy at ¶ 43, citing State v. Murphy, 91 Ohio St.3d 516, 524 (2001). It 

is not this court's role to second guess trial counsel's strategic decisions. State v. Lloyd, 

12th Dist. Warren Nos. CA2007-04-052 and CA2007-04-053, 2008-Ohio-3383, ¶ 61. This 

includes the decision as to whether to call the defendant to testify on his own behalf. State 

v. Huber, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 98128, 2013-Ohio-97, ¶ 9 ("[a] decision regarding whether 

to call a defendant to testify on his own behalf during the course of trial is a matter of trial 

strategy"). 

{¶ 25} The same is true regarding the manner that trial counsel chooses to crossexamine the state's witnesses for it is well-established that under certain circumstances 

"limited or no cross-examination of a witness may be the best strategy." State v. Petit, 12th 

Dist. Madison No. CA2016-01-005, 2017-Ohio-633, ¶ 49. Gearhart's trial counsel 

specifically alluded to this fact as part of mitigation at sentencing, wherein his trial counsel 

 

3. It should be noted, after reviewing the trial transcript submitted in this case, much of the testimony Gearhart 

claims his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to was testified to by multiple witnesses, oftentimes 

without any objection and/or in response to the trial court's own questioning of those same witnesses. For 

instance, although Gearhart argues his trial counsel was ineffective for not objecting to the physician 

assistant's testimony that a subdural hematoma could be fatal, as discussed in the statement of facts, Dr. 

Dines also testified, without objection, that a subdural hematoma could be fatal. 
Warren CA2017-12-168 

 - 9 - 

stated: 

And, Judge, you are obviously in a unique position where you – 

where this case was actually tried to you. And I think it's 

important to note that during these proceedings, there were only 

a few challenges from the defense, in large part. 

The State presented its case without challenges from us. Our 

challenges, though, dealt specifically with the felonious assault, 

how or where it was committed. 

"The fact that trial strategy was ultimately unsuccessful * * * does not amount to ineffective 

assistance of counsel." State v. Davis, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2012-12-258, 2013-Ohio3878, ¶ 25. 

{¶ 26} Contrary to Gearhart's claims otherwise, the "[f]ailure to make objections does 

not automatically constitute ineffective assistance of counsel[.]" State v. Homer, 12th Dist. 

Warren No. CA2003-12-117, 2006-Ohio-1432, ¶ 15, citing State v. Conway, 108 Ohio St.3d 

214, 2006-Ohio-791, ¶ 168. "Trial counsel is not ineffective for choosing, for tactical 

reasons, not to pursue every possible trial objection." State v. Raypole, 12th Dist. Fayette 

No. CA2014-05-009, 2015-Ohio-827, ¶ 24. This is because, as this court has stated 

previously, "[o]bjections tend to disrupt the flow of a trial and are considered technical and 

bothersome by [the trier of fact]." State v. Steele, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2003-11-276, 

2005-Ohio-943, ¶ 100, citing State v. Hill, 75 Ohio St.3d 195, 211 (1996). Gearhart's claim 

otherwise lacks merit. 

{¶ 27} Not only can Gearhart not establish that his trial counsel's performance fell 

below an objective standard of reasonableness, Gearhart has also not established that his 

trial counsel's performance subjected him to any resulting prejudice. Simply stated, the 

record in this case plainly establishes that Gearhart was not convicted as a result of his trial 

counsel's performance, but rather based on the overwhelming evidence of his guilt, most 

notably the video recording of the incident taken from the in-home security camera. In other 
Warren CA2017-12-168 

 - 10 - 

words, nothing about the disputed testimony Gearhart complains of had any impact on the 

outcome of trial, let alone a reasonable probability that the result would have been different. 

The same is true regarding Gearhart's claim that the "cumulative effect" of his trial counsel's 

alleged errors denied him a fair trial. The alleged errors by Gearhart's trial counsel, even 

when viewed cumulatively, do not show that there is a reasonable probability that, but for 

these alleged errors, the result of trial would have been different. 

{¶ 28} After a full and thorough review of the record, we find it clear that Gearhart 

was provided a fair trial before the trial court judge, who, after taking the matter under 

advisement, found Gearhart guilty of domestic violence and felonious assault. In a bench 

trial, the trial court is presumed to consider only relevant, competent evidence in reaching 

its decision unless the appellant makes an affirmative showing to the contrary. State v. 

Ketterer, 111 Ohio St.3d 70, 2006-Ohio-5283, ¶ 174, citing State v. Post, 32 Ohio St.3d 

380, 384 (1987). Gearhart has made no such affirmative showing here. 

{¶ 29} The overwhelming evidence supports the trial court's decision finding 

Gearhart guilty of domestic violence and felonious assault. The record also supports the 

trial court's decision to sentence Gearhart to serve four years in prison. Therefore, because 

Gearhart cannot make an adequate showing on either prong necessary to establish a claim 

of ineffective assistance of counsel, Gearhart's claim that he received ineffective assistance 

of counsel lacks merit. Accordingly, finding no merit to any of Gearhart's claims raised 

herein, Gearhart's second assignment of error is overruled. 

{¶ 30} Judgment affirmed. 

 RINGLAND and HENDRICKSON, JJ., concur.